What To Pick For The PIC

In message "More Rotary Encoders", clay@supra.com writes:

> >In all the recent discussions about rotary encoders, I don't think I ever
> >saw anyone mention Cinematronics. The reason this comes to mind now, sev-
> >eral weeks later, is that I just started work on connecting a Boxing Bugs
> >board set to my Cosmic Chasm. Both of which use rotary encoders, neither
> >of which were mentioned above.
>
> Ahhh! More to the list!

<snip>

> Now then, I need a little help/advise... What four modes should I pick to
> support? Looks like there's some more possibilities--
>

It seems as if there are more than four different encoding schemes that we
know of thus far. Due to I/O and memory constraints, we seem to be limit-
ed to about four encoder variants in a PIC. I don't know all that much a-
bout the PIC, but can you picture the following type of configuration; if
the PIC were to be used as a platform (albeit a platform the size of a pin
head), where you could bind in the specific variants required in your par-
ticular application.

This way, when you find yourself with that "new" game board sitting on the
bench, you just slam in the variant you need and away you go. No worrying
about not having the right interface.

Also, anyone who finds a new encoding scheme only has to write the applica-
tion portion of the interface, but won't have to reinvent the more common,
low level stuff.

FWIW, I'd be interested in seeing the Bugs variant. This way the encoding
hardware won't have to be added to the new digital sound board to play the
game.

Cheers,
Mark
                            
Received on Tue Aug 5 11:44:13 1997